Re: [CR]History of below BB cable routing?

(Example: Component Manufacturers:Campagnolo)

Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 18:33:55 -0700
From: "Chuck Schmidt" <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net>
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: Re: [CR]History of below BB cable routing?
References: <a05111700b929a0db7be0@[10.0.1.2]>


Brandon Ives wrote:
>
> Something that I've always wondered about is when and why folks
> switched to under the BB cable routing. I've always preferred the
> above routing since the cables are shorter and put them more out of
> the way of road grime, plus it gives the housing less bend and a
> better line to the RD. I can understand for production that drilling
> and tapping a 5m hole is much easier than soldering on two hard to
> jig tiny cable guides.

Because they are inferior Man Monkey! I have cleaned up enough 70s pro bikes to see that there is _never_ good paint coverage between the cable guides and the seat and down tubes (meaning I always find rust behind 'em), the paint is always chipped off the edges of the guides (more rust), and there is always crud stuck in the nooks and crannies that has been there since the first time the bike was ridden in the rain (holds moisture for the better to create rust)! Plus it looks cluttered.

If they were so hot, you'd see them back on the bike by now. It's all evolution...

Chuck "rust never sleeps" Schmidt
SoPas, SoCal